Dismissed¶¶25

A.Mariyappan v. The District Revenue Officer

Interim stay – WMP(MD)No.4487 of 2025 in WP(MD)No.6102 of 2025

Madras HC11 Mar 2025WMP(MD)/4487/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WMP(MD)No.4487 of 2025; WP(MD)No. 6102 of 2025; A.Mariyappan v. District Revenue Officer, Madurai & Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple; interim stay refused; impugned order directing parties to competent civil Court; no adverse findings; apprehension of interference with possession; liberty to file injunction application; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 11-03-2025; P.B. Balaji, J.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous petition seeking stay dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate injunction application if he apprehends interference with his physical possession. ¶¶25

A.Mariyappan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WMP(MD)No.4487 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

WMP(MD)No.4487 of 2025 in WP(MD)No. 6102 of 2025

¶7

A.Mariyappan S/o S.Arumugam, No.4/17, Kanakkar Street, Kuthiyarkundu, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The District Revenue Officer Madurai.

¶11

2.Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple Through its Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s):

¶13

Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

1/3

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WMP(MD)No.4487 of 2025

¶21

2.On 07.03.2025, this Court had admitted the writ petition and also granted an order of interim stay of the impugned order.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the second respondent, Temple, has invited my attention to the impugned order, where parties were only directed to approach the competent civil Court and there have been no adverse findings warranting the stay of the said impugned order.

¶23

4.On going through the impugned order, I am satisfied with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the second respondent. In fact, even the writ petitioner, on going through the affidavit in support of the writ petition, I find has only apprehended interference with his possession and on that score alone has

¶24

sought for interim stay of the operation of the impugned order. If at all the writ petitioner apprehends any interference with the physical possession, it shall be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate injunction application.

¶25

5.With such liberty, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶26

sd/11/03/2025

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

sji

¶30

¶31